Print

[potzy248]

This Author is generally a right tool, but you can't really argue with this.
Sad day as Phil is laid to rest.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/63759297/Reason-Phillip-Hughes-death-highlights-hypocrisy

[InternalTraining]

I agree with the author.

Cricket is no longer a gentleman's sport. I don't like that.

[ProCricketer1982]

Unfortunately this article is spot on. It just shows how everything is ok until it happens to you directly.

[potzy248]

What if Johnson had broken Anderson's arm? Aussies would have been laughing. I hate how they always say "No bowler deliberately goes out there to hurt a batsman". Thats absolute rubbish.

[Andythomo21]

Extremely interesting and informative article.  Like it or loathe it, people have always sledged and slated and people have always used pace and short pitched deliveries to unsettle batsmen and get under their skin, often resulting in getting them out.  Both are topics that will split public opinion and it's just unfortunate that it's taken an incident like this to get so many people talking about it!

[Stuey]

What if Johnson had broken Anderson's arm? Aussies would have been laughing. I hate how they always say "No bowler deliberately goes out there to hurt a batsman". Thats absolute rubbish.

I suspect some of the Aussie batsman wanted blood and especially Clarke for taking a barrage of short balls in the last ashes here, but I doubt Johnson did he seemed to be under captains orders.

However I do agree some bowlers look to take out the odd batsman here and there. The Dentist wasn't called the Dentist for nothing he collected body parts! 

[InternalTraining]

What if Mitchell Johnson actually had maimed a batsman? With his pace and dangerous style of bowling, it is highly probable.

I know, and I understand that these things have happened before and they will continue to happen. However, that does not make it right! Field umpires should have the authority to issue color cards for on-field offenses. Yellow card for warning, red card for score/run deduction, add the black card for ejection.

[tim2000s]

He could have,  but whilst it is highly probable that he would hit someone,  it's very unlikely and highly improbable that he would maim them.

There are already rules about intimidating the batsman.  Use these properly on field rather than introducing a whole load of pointless new rules.

[ProCricketer1982]

I do agree it's hypocritical of Clarke to sledge like he does etc. However, I blame the batsmen more nowadays. They don't need to take on the short bowling, they could just get out the way but it seems to be expected by the public and coaches that they attack the short ball. If you are going to attack it then I sort of think the bowler should be able to 'attack' you. After all, it's biff cricket already let alone if we told bowlers they had to bowl x length or more.. might as well just sack off bowling, use a machien and have a baseball style slog fest.

If batsmen ducked/swayed then the umpires could call a halt to the bouncer barrage as it's not softening them up etc, it's just being intimidating. However, if the batsmen is taking it on, then I'm all for the bowler having a go at them, the modern game with flat tracks, short boundaries is too batsmen friendly already.

[InternalTraining]

He could have,  but whilst it is highly probable that he would hit someone,  it's very unlikely and highly improbable that he would maim them.

Really?! At 90+ mph?

There are already rules about intimidating the batsman.  Use these properly on field rather than introducing a whole load of pointless new rules.

I would love to see somebody using those rules about "intimidating the batsman". I would rather that new ones are introduced and strictly enforced. It seems that there is a generation of cricket fans out there who doesn't know that they are actually rules about intimidating the batsman.

[tim2000s]

Really?! At 90+ mph?

I would love to see somebody using those rules about "intimidating the batsman". I would rather that new ones are introduced and strictly enforced. It seems that there is a generation of cricket fans out there who doesn't know that they are actually rules about intimidating the batsman.

Simply using empirical evidence,  the windies bowlers and lillee would surely have killed someone were maiming common place. That they didn't tells you what you need to know about not getting badly damaged by a bowler.

[Sam]

Problem is it's also a legitimate tactic for getting people out by catching them by surprise.

[Stuey]

I do agree it's hypocritical of Clarke to sledge like he does etc. However, I blame the batsmen more nowadays. They don't need to take on the short bowling, they could just get out the way but it seems to be expected by the public and coaches that they attack the short ball. If you are going to attack it then I sort of think the bowler should be able to 'attack' you. After all, it's biff cricket already let alone if we told bowlers they had to bowl x length or more.. might as well just sack off bowling, use a machien and have a baseball style slog fest.

If batsmen ducked/swayed then the umpires could call a halt to the bouncer barrage as it's not softening them up etc, it's just being intimidating. However, if the batsmen is taking it on, then I'm all for the bowler having a go at them, the modern game with flat tracks, short boundaries is too batsmen friendly already.

You can't play batsmen for taking on short pitched bowling, for some batsman it's a crucial party of their play. Take Ponting, he was a very good hooker/puller and used it to make the bowler pitch it further up. Some batsman would be more at risk to injury if they went against their natural game and tried to duck when their instinct and reaction is to take on the ball.

[ProCricketer1982]

Simply using empirical evidence,  the windies bowlers and lillee would surely have killed someone were maiming common place. That they didn't tells you what you need to know about not getting badly damaged by a bowler.

I disagree. More people are getting hit now than ever before, % means that at some point, something bad will happen. What the sport needs to look at is why are they getting hit more now than before?

[ProCricketer1982]

You can't play batsmen for taking on short pitched bowling, for some batsman it's a crucial party of their play. Take Ponting, he was a very good hooker/puller and used it to make the bowler pitch it further up. Some batsman would be more at risk to injury if they went against their natural game and tried to duck when their instinct and reaction is to take on the ball.

You can blame them. Ponting is probably one of the few modern players who is actually good enough to pull/hook. As I've just said, there must be a reason why we are seeing more batsmen getting hit than ever, and it's certainly not because the bowling is better!